Wow! Thanks for validating a point I made on another thread where I said:

Many people believe in a supreme creator god because they use common
sense. Common sense is acquired from our personal experiences of how the
world works. Obviously our common sense is thus limited by our
experiences - lived or learned. Common sense is good for common, every
day life. But is it wise to use common sense to explain uncommon, exotic
phenomena?

Theists know that complex machinery and human
technology come about by human creators. Using common sense they project
this principle of creation of the functional and complex unto the
natural world. If a house needs a designer, then surely the universe
does too, they reason.

But remember what we said about common
sense being informed by human experience. We know from human experience
that human technology needs a creator and it's possible to see human
technology in the process of being made. What experience do we have of
universes being made? None.

Creationism has absolutely nothing going for it all. On the other hand evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of objective evidence. The information in the OP of this thread should be enough to convince any rational person.

When man created machines and computers, did he completely reinvent the wheel? In the late 1800's why didn't they just create the iphone as it's shown today? Since computers can be shown to have evolved then that information shows that man didn't make computers but they all evolved on their own and had no human input. With that being said, why do you limit a creator to having to make all life forms distinct with no sharing characteristics or base?

No science please, I'm common sensing a theory which validates my current bronze age explanation for how life developed. Of course everything is a little bit similar if Atum masturbated all the other gods into being and cried happy tears which became humans. Everything carries a little part of Atum with them and that's clearly what you're trying to describe. We had this figured out 4000 years ago guys. Why the debate?

I wonder why some people try to shut down these type of discussions .?

Because they interpret well established, factual assertions as some kind of dogmatic statement based on nothing more than ego and hubris. Rather than coming up with reasonable arguments as to how the data could be realistically interpreted differently to support creation they view a pure statement of fact as a personal attack purely based on intellectual snobbery.

Good examples of classic propaganda techniques by the evolutionary faithful here.

Faith has no place in science. Either you accept the evidence or you do not - in which case people who tend to base their decisions on fact would continue their examination of empirical evidence until the facts all corroborated the proposed theory. Naturally I would expect this point to be lost on emotional "believers" to whom evidence means nothing and emotional commitment means everything.